Letter from Convener to Minister for Social Security and Local Government, 11 January 2022
Dear Minister,
The Committee held an evidence session on 16 December 2021 on the forthcoming Adult Disability Payment (ADP) regulations, now laid, which will start to replace Personal Independence Payment (PIP) in Scotland.
Witnesses are keen to ensure that the independent review of ADP, proposed to start in 2023, is well-prepared for.
Judith Paterson (Scottish Commission on Social Security (SCoSS)) said:
“The more that can be done now to scope that review, the better. For example, the stakeholder feedback—all the rich evidence that the Scottish Government has received—could be used as a starting point to identify the areas of particular concern where improvements could be made. The Scottish Government could start to think about commissioning some research into those areas and scheduling experience panels, client panels and consultation exercises.” (Col 8)
Others were concerned that changes identified by the review might not be implemented in this Parliament. Richard Gass (Rights Advice Scotland) reflected that the timeframe is fairly ambitious. He considered whether change will be achievable and that this will depend on how much change is proposed:
“If the review proposes a fundamental change, it will require detailed new legislation and all the scrutiny that goes with that.” (Col 9)
The Committee asks the Scottish Government what preparation it is undertaking to inform the scope of the review. Also, when in 2023 will the independent review start, what will its anticipated duration be and does the Scottish Government anticipate recommendations being implemented during this Parliamentary Session? In addition, the Committee would be interested to know what lessons can be learned from the roll-out of the Child Disability Payment.
Changes to the terminal illness rules were welcomed by witnesses, although there was an acknowledgement that data needs to be collected on the new processes in Scotland and reviewed to see how well it is working. The Committee also heard from Trisha Hatt (Macmillan Cancer Support) on the role of supporting people with the application process:
“We have experience of supporting people with a palliative end-of-life care diagnosis, and I agree that the staff need to be supported with training. The training that we provide to the staff we support—benefits advisers and those providing the improving the cancer journey service—helps them to understand the sensitivity, particularly from an end-of-life care position. That will be very important for people now because of the new terminal illness criteria.” (Col 39)
The Committee also heard that there was potential for confusion, given that different terminal illness rules will continue to apply to reserved benefits being claimed in Scotland.
The Committee welcomes the changes to the terminal illness rules and asks the Scottish Government how it plans to advertise the benefit to potential claimants and work with the DWP to ensure that claimants are not disadvantaged by the existence of two types of terminal illness rules for social security benefits.
One of the key discussion points of the evidence session was around whether minor changes can be made to ADP without endangering the safe and secure transfer of cases.
Richard Gass (Rights Advice Scotland) understood the idea of safe and secure transition but felt it had been used as a justification for not being sufficiently ambitious, in particular, in relation to the mobility component. He said:
“For example, many claimants who were on disability living allowance moved over to PIP and lost their mobility component or their higher-rate mobility component at that stage, and we had hoped that the new system would rectify that, but it has not done so. There is an opportunity here for the mobility element to be reviewed. That would require some reassessment, but it would be reassessment for the good.” (Col 4)
Richard Gass also drew attention to the way this affects young people moving from CDP to ADP. He stated that when they apply for ADP, different rules on mobility will apply and urged the problem to be resolved promptly. (Col 8)
Other witnesses were also concerned that the opportunity would not be taken to address outstanding changes, particularly in relation to variable conditions and the higher rate of the mobility component.
Keith Park (MS Society Scotland) referred to the huge impact losing entitlement to higher rate mobility component has on people’s ability to live their lives. Access to mobility vehicles is lost, which has meant many people with MS have had to give up their work. (Cols 21-22) Bill Scott (Inclusion Scotland) advised it also impacts on their ability to see friends and family, to take part in aspects of community life and to access essential services such as health and education, as well as to increase the isolation that many disabled people face. He pointed out that rural areas can be particularly affected as there is less access to public transport. (Col 22) Craig Smith (Scottish Association for Mental Health) also highlighted the eligibility difficulties for people with variable conditions, such as mental ill health.
On the length of time it has taken to develop disability assistance Bill Scott (Inclusion Scotland) said:
“When we first consulted with disabled people in 2016 and 2017 on the devolved benefits, the emphasis was on a safe and secure transfer, but if we had known how long it was going to take to look at the entitlement criteria, I am not sure that our members would have been so supportive of that.”
SCoSS was broadly accepting of the Scottish Government’s position in favour of avoiding disruption and going with a safe and secure transition. Judith Paterson advised in the course of SCoSS’s scrutiny the critical priority in the short term is to make sure that people can be confident that their payments will continue without disruption. (Col 5) She did however consider there is no reason why the ground work could not be carried out now, “such as scoping out the review and considering which changes could be made in the medium term and which are long-term ambitions, for example because they will require primary legislation. Some areas could be changed more easily”. She did sound a note of caution to test any changes to eligibility rules to ensure that the consequences for people are fully understood. (Col 12)
The Committee asks the Scottish Government for its views on what changes could be made to ADP without endangering the safe and secure transition.
We would welcome a response by 21 January to inform your forthcoming appearance before the Committee.
Yours sincerely
Neil Gray MSP
Convener, Social Justice and Social Security Committee